Winners without victory

The Netherlands [ENA] Winners without victory Negotiations between the United States and Iran have ended without results. Actually, this cannot be considered unexpected. According to experts, the conditions put forward by both sides were unacceptable to the other party. It is no coincidence that when the ceasefire was announced, both sides rushed to declare themselves the winners.

In Azerbaijan, there is a saying for this: “Don’t say ‘hop’ before you jump over the ditch”, in other words, claiming victory before achieving results. This is exactly what both the United States and Iran have done. The ceasefire is expected to be broken soon. It is even possible that this has already happened as these lines are being written, despite the agreement that it would last until April 22. What does the United States want from Iran? It is well known that since 1995, the US has imposed a trade embargo on Iran, for reasons that are widely understood. The main topics of the recent negotiations were the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear program. However, no agreement was reached, and none is expected in the near future.

This confrontation has affected not only the US and Iran but also many countries around the world economically. Oil and fuel prices have reached record highs. According to some polit-ical analysts, although the US conflict appears to be directly with Iran, it is also indirectly aimed at China and the European Union. It is no coincidence that President Donald Trump has repeatedly accused European countries of failing to adequately support the United States within NATO. Nevertheless, he continues to express hope that these allies will provide support.

Following the failure of negotiations, Trump announced that the US Navy would impose a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz. In addition, the United States has begun clearing mines allegedly placed by Iran in the strait. Trump confirmed that several countries, including the United Kingdom, are contributing by sending mine-clearing vessels. He also instructed the Navy to detain any ships that pay “fees” to Iran for passage through international waters, describing this as “global racketeering.”

The future course of events remains uncertain and highly significant, as neither side appears willing to step back. For the United States, retreat would mean a serious loss of credibility for President Trump and his political camp. For Iran, it could signal the beginning of the weakening of the current regime and a decline in its regional influence. For the conflict to end, Iran would need to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions and reo-pen the Strait of Hormuz, while the United States would have to reduce its reliance on Irani-an oil. However, for this to happen, oil would need to lose its global importance something that is far from reality at present.

In her book Hard Choices, Hillary Clinton refers to “countries whose policies we may not agree with, but whose cooperation we need.” It is possible that the United States may even-tually adopt this approach toward Iran as well. For now, one key question remains: will negotiations continue, or will tensions escalate fur-ther? In other words, will water be poured on the fire, or oil?